Read the other day that there actually isn’t any official distinction. It’s just colloquially used that way in some scientific circles but definitely not all. Probably not by etymologists.
Normally, I’m all for language changing over time. If some word is used a certain way, so beit. But not here. Not in a case where people can end up saying dumb shit like “Evolution is just a theory.” I will physically fight people on that, If need be.
I think anyone who uses the word “literally” to mean anything other than “in a literal sense” is a moron who never actually thinks about what the words coming out of their mouth mean, and I always will.
You hate so much on people that use literally this way, but you do the same thing yourself…
Moron is a term once used in psychology and psychiatry to denote mild intellectual disability. The term was closely tied with the American eugenics movement. Once the term became popularized, it fell out of use by the psychological community, as it was used more commonly as an insult than as a psychological term. It is similar to imbecile and idiot.
But unless the people that use “literally” in the colloquial sense you are actually using a term that is tied to eugenics and the idea that disabled people are inferior. Maybe you should have thought about the words that come out of mouth?
People who do not seem to understand that language is different than they wish it to be, are the actual morons. Not only morons, but pampas morons. Language is messy, imprecise, and always in flux. Language is a construct of the collective of its speakers, not you alone, nor anyone else. This is why we have specific lexicons for various industries, and academic fields. Even those are constantly being updated, and revised.
And, more importantly, I will use language as I please; I don’t have to justify my use of words to anyone. That is why I don’t see why people complain about using words “the wrong way”. Even if it is, I will still insist on my right to produce whatever gibberish my mouth is willing to put forward.
To be perfectly fair, you can’t “prove” or “disprove” a theory. You can only discover new evidence that supports the theory or another competing theory. Multiple competing theories can be equally accepted as correct.
The issue is people using exactly that definition to reject science. We also have a theory of gravity, but gravity itself is an observation. Evolution should be too, regardless of our theories about it.
Also, String Theory isn’t doing anyone any favors.
I appreciate your passion for scientific literacy - it’s crucial for combating misinformation. However, I’d like to share some perspectives that might broaden our understanding of scientific knowledge and how it develops.
First, it’s worth noting that the distinction between “theory” and “hypothesis” isn’t as clear-cut as we might think. In “The Scientific Attitude,” Stephen McIntyre argues that what truly defines science isn’t a rigid set of rules, but rather an ethos of critical inquiry and evidence-based reasoning. This ties into the “demarcation problem” in philosophy of science - the challenge of clearly defining what is and isn’t science. Despite this ongoing debate, science continues to be a powerful tool for understanding our world.
Your stance seems to align with positivism, which views scientific knowledge as objective and verifiable. However, other epistemological approaches exist. Joseph A. Maxwell’s work on critical realism offers a nuanced view that acknowledges both the existence of an objective reality and the role of human interpretation in understanding it.
Maxwell defines validity in research not just as statistical significance, but as the absence of plausible alternative explanations. This approach encourages us to constantly question and refine our understanding, rather than treating any explanation as final.
Gerard Delanty’s “Philosophies of Social Science” provides a historical perspective on how our conception of science has evolved. Modern views often see science as a reflexive process, acknowledging the role of the researcher and societal context in shaping scientific knowledge.
Larry McEnery’s work further emphasizes this point, describing how knowledge emerges from ongoing conversations within communities of researchers. What we consider “knowledge” at any given time is the result of these dynamic processes, not a static, unchanging truth.
Understanding these perspectives doesn’t diminish the power or importance of science. Instead, it can make us more aware of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry and more resistant to overly simplistic arguments from science deniers.
By embracing some psychological flexibility around terms like “theory” and “hypothesis,” we’re not opening the door to pseudoscience. Rather, we’re acknowledging the nuanced nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing process of inquiry that characterizes good science.
What do you think about these ideas? I’d be interested to hear your perspective and continue this conversation.
A law describes what happens, a theory explains why. The law of gravity says that if you drop an item, it will fall to the ground. The theory of relativity explains that the “fall” occurs due to the curvature of space time.
Science can never answer “why.” In your example, the question why is just moved, from “why does it fall?” to “why does mass distort space-time?” In both cases physics just describes what happens.
Not every action needs a cause. Especially when entering the subatomic level, quantum effects appear to be fully probabilistic. Nothing causes the electron to emit a photon exactly then at exactly that energy, it’s just something that happens.
Even at the largest scales, quantum effects have shaped the structure of superclusters of galaxies and in many models underpin the beginning of the universe.
At these extreme ends, the concept of causality gets weaker, and asking “Why?” starts to lose meaning. You could say nothing caused many things, or equally say they happened because they could.
In all cases encountered so far however, learning more has enabled us to identify new limits on possibility, and usually to narrow down on the details. It’s a practically endless series of "why"s that grow ever more exact, until we find the limits of what can be known. Maybe this chain has an end, maybe not, but to claim that science cannot answer any “Why?” is just wrong.
Nothing causes the electron to emit a photon exactly then at exactly that energy, it’s just something that happens.
I have to say this doesn’t sound very scientific to me.
Science would settle at “it’s just something that happens”? Certainly not the scientist in me, lol. Everything that happens is driven by something, in my mind. Some process. Even if it “appears” probabilistic or whatever. Seems like a probabilistic model is applicable to the behavior, perhaps, but we can’t measure or see such small things so we can’t really make any more detailed models than that. Isn’t that right?
So just because we don’t yet have a model for it or understand it fully, but we can describe it with some model, doesn’t mean we are finished or should stop there, IMO.
It’s like saying the dinosaurs went extinct after the youngest bones we’ve found. Or that they are exactly as old as the oldest bones we’ve found. But, we haven’t found all the dinosaur bones, or at least we can’t know that we have or haven’t. And we definitely haven’t found the bones of those dinosaurs that didn’t leave behind bones.
Sorry for taking so long to write a response. I had to think a bit about this.
So, I don’t think it feels very satisfying to the average physicist to just say “well, atoms sometimes just spontaneously emit photons”. It’s a model that correlates well with our measurements, but there’s no proof that it is true.
In some sense, the purpose of science is to make sense of the world, and it surely isn’t the most satisfying thing to be left without an ulterior explanation. That is why I think it is important to repeatedly ask why, until one finds the primordial source of causality.
In physics we call some results “laws” and some “theories.” The difference has absolutely nothing to do with our certainty in the validity of the results.
Newton’s Laws of motion are called that because they can be written as concise mathematical equations, and allof the content is there. Einstein’s Theory of special relativity is just as valid, and even contains Newton’s Laws as a special case, but the content of the theory can’t be written in simple, concise equations. There are several equations included in special relativity, but they do not represent the entire content. For example, the most important statement of the theory cannot be written in equation form at all: “The measured speed of light in a vacuum will be the same for all observers in inertial reference frames, regardless of the relative speed of their reference frame.”
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution likewise cannot be written in concise statements (mathematical or otherwise), but our certainty in its validity is no less than in Newton’s Laws.
Another important subtlety: I was careful to say that we are certain of the validity. People who don’t know better are fond of saying that Newton’s Laws are wrong. This is a fallacy. Scientific laws and theories can only be valid or not, they can never be true.
I remember seeing somewhere that the “colloquial” usage is actually the original and that the scientific community is the one that changed it. I do agree that the evolution argument is stupid but it’s hard to blame the non scientific populace for not knowing the distinction. The evolution denier just don’t have a lot else to stand on.
Read the other day that there actually isn’t any official distinction. It’s just colloquially used that way in some scientific circles but definitely not all. Probably not by etymologists.
Normally, I’m all for language changing over time. If some word is used a certain way, so beit. But not here. Not in a case where people can end up saying dumb shit like “Evolution is just a theory.” I will physically fight people on that, If need be.
Theory meaning “unproven assumption” is one of the definitions in Merriam-Webster so it is not a new definition.
You’re just angry word means something you don’t want it to mean. Just like the literally-figuratively crowd.
I think anyone who uses the word “literally” to mean anything other than “in a literal sense” is a moron who never actually thinks about what the words coming out of their mouth mean, and I always will.
You hate so much on people that use literally this way, but you do the same thing yourself…
Wikipedia
But unless the people that use “literally” in the colloquial sense you are actually using a term that is tied to eugenics and the idea that disabled people are inferior. Maybe you should have thought about the words that come out of mouth?
People who do not seem to understand that language is different than they wish it to be, are the actual morons. Not only morons, but pampas morons. Language is messy, imprecise, and always in flux. Language is a construct of the collective of its speakers, not you alone, nor anyone else. This is why we have specific lexicons for various industries, and academic fields. Even those are constantly being updated, and revised.
And, more importantly, I will use language as I please; I don’t have to justify my use of words to anyone. That is why I don’t see why people complain about using words “the wrong way”. Even if it is, I will still insist on my right to produce whatever gibberish my mouth is willing to put forward.
Edit: In other words, right to be wrong.
Yeah, as long as everyone involved understands what is being said I am fine with it.
If you consider gross misuse to be a valid form of etymology, I have a question to axe.
The aks variant pronunciation of ask is fine. It is part of a dialect.
To be perfectly fair, you can’t “prove” or “disprove” a theory. You can only discover new evidence that supports the theory or another competing theory. Multiple competing theories can be equally accepted as correct.
The issue is people using exactly that definition to reject science. We also have a theory of gravity, but gravity itself is an observation. Evolution should be too, regardless of our theories about it.
Also, String Theory isn’t doing anyone any favors.
I appreciate your passion for scientific literacy - it’s crucial for combating misinformation. However, I’d like to share some perspectives that might broaden our understanding of scientific knowledge and how it develops.
First, it’s worth noting that the distinction between “theory” and “hypothesis” isn’t as clear-cut as we might think. In “The Scientific Attitude,” Stephen McIntyre argues that what truly defines science isn’t a rigid set of rules, but rather an ethos of critical inquiry and evidence-based reasoning. This ties into the “demarcation problem” in philosophy of science - the challenge of clearly defining what is and isn’t science. Despite this ongoing debate, science continues to be a powerful tool for understanding our world.
Your stance seems to align with positivism, which views scientific knowledge as objective and verifiable. However, other epistemological approaches exist. Joseph A. Maxwell’s work on critical realism offers a nuanced view that acknowledges both the existence of an objective reality and the role of human interpretation in understanding it.
Maxwell defines validity in research not just as statistical significance, but as the absence of plausible alternative explanations. This approach encourages us to constantly question and refine our understanding, rather than treating any explanation as final.
Gerard Delanty’s “Philosophies of Social Science” provides a historical perspective on how our conception of science has evolved. Modern views often see science as a reflexive process, acknowledging the role of the researcher and societal context in shaping scientific knowledge.
Larry McEnery’s work further emphasizes this point, describing how knowledge emerges from ongoing conversations within communities of researchers. What we consider “knowledge” at any given time is the result of these dynamic processes, not a static, unchanging truth.
Understanding these perspectives doesn’t diminish the power or importance of science. Instead, it can make us more aware of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry and more resistant to overly simplistic arguments from science deniers.
By embracing some psychological flexibility around terms like “theory” and “hypothesis,” we’re not opening the door to pseudoscience. Rather, we’re acknowledging the nuanced nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing process of inquiry that characterizes good science.
What do you think about these ideas? I’d be interested to hear your perspective and continue this conversation.
Could you explain the difference to me? 🙏
A law describes what happens, a theory explains why. The law of gravity says that if you drop an item, it will fall to the ground. The theory of relativity explains that the “fall” occurs due to the curvature of space time.
I was referring to the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
Theorem would also be interesting to add to the mix.
Science can never answer “why.” In your example, the question why is just moved, from “why does it fall?” to “why does mass distort space-time?” In both cases physics just describes what happens.
But that is why it happens. Causality in most certainly something that can be discerned scientifically.
But then, to follow up on your statement, what is the cause of all causes?
In other words, where does the chain of causes begin?
Not every action needs a cause. Especially when entering the subatomic level, quantum effects appear to be fully probabilistic. Nothing causes the electron to emit a photon exactly then at exactly that energy, it’s just something that happens.
Even at the largest scales, quantum effects have shaped the structure of superclusters of galaxies and in many models underpin the beginning of the universe.
At these extreme ends, the concept of causality gets weaker, and asking “Why?” starts to lose meaning. You could say nothing caused many things, or equally say they happened because they could.
In all cases encountered so far however, learning more has enabled us to identify new limits on possibility, and usually to narrow down on the details. It’s a practically endless series of "why"s that grow ever more exact, until we find the limits of what can be known. Maybe this chain has an end, maybe not, but to claim that science cannot answer any “Why?” is just wrong.
I have to say this doesn’t sound very scientific to me.
Science would settle at “it’s just something that happens”? Certainly not the scientist in me, lol. Everything that happens is driven by something, in my mind. Some process. Even if it “appears” probabilistic or whatever. Seems like a probabilistic model is applicable to the behavior, perhaps, but we can’t measure or see such small things so we can’t really make any more detailed models than that. Isn’t that right?
So just because we don’t yet have a model for it or understand it fully, but we can describe it with some model, doesn’t mean we are finished or should stop there, IMO.
It’s like saying the dinosaurs went extinct after the youngest bones we’ve found. Or that they are exactly as old as the oldest bones we’ve found. But, we haven’t found all the dinosaur bones, or at least we can’t know that we have or haven’t. And we definitely haven’t found the bones of those dinosaurs that didn’t leave behind bones.
You feel what I’m getting at, kind of?
Sorry for taking so long to write a response. I had to think a bit about this.
So, I don’t think it feels very satisfying to the average physicist to just say “well, atoms sometimes just spontaneously emit photons”. It’s a model that correlates well with our measurements, but there’s no proof that it is true.
In some sense, the purpose of science is to make sense of the world, and it surely isn’t the most satisfying thing to be left without an ulterior explanation. That is why I think it is important to repeatedly ask why, until one finds the primordial source of causality.
In physics we call some results “laws” and some “theories.” The difference has absolutely nothing to do with our certainty in the validity of the results.
Newton’s Laws of motion are called that because they can be written as concise mathematical equations, and allof the content is there. Einstein’s Theory of special relativity is just as valid, and even contains Newton’s Laws as a special case, but the content of the theory can’t be written in simple, concise equations. There are several equations included in special relativity, but they do not represent the entire content. For example, the most important statement of the theory cannot be written in equation form at all: “The measured speed of light in a vacuum will be the same for all observers in inertial reference frames, regardless of the relative speed of their reference frame.”
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution likewise cannot be written in concise statements (mathematical or otherwise), but our certainty in its validity is no less than in Newton’s Laws.
Another important subtlety: I was careful to say that we are certain of the validity. People who don’t know better are fond of saying that Newton’s Laws are wrong. This is a fallacy. Scientific laws and theories can only be valid or not, they can never be true.
Now do theorem
You mean, as opposed to lemma? I’ve never been confident that I understand the difference between those. :(
And so is gravity, and the concept of colors.
I remember seeing somewhere that the “colloquial” usage is actually the original and that the scientific community is the one that changed it. I do agree that the evolution argument is stupid but it’s hard to blame the non scientific populace for not knowing the distinction. The evolution denier just don’t have a lot else to stand on.